I’m all for banning it. But let’s take an honest look at the election predictions and notice PA will almost certainly be the deciding state in November. Eastern PA is solid blue, so the election effectively comes down to Western PA, where fracking is a single issue vote.
Perfection is the enemy of progress. We have a two party system and that’s not going away in 2 months. She can say she’ll ban it and Trump wins PA, or she can reverse course, opt for greater regulation, and have a chance to be the most climate forward president in US history.
Sssshhh
We’re doin like 5 different irrational reasons every single day why PLEASE DON’T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT FELLOW LEFT WING VOTERS
It doesn’t need to make any logical sense, it just needs to be a variety of stuff and literally never fuckin stop
Threat of Trump is unique. This isn’t the usual “vote for us or else.” I want progressive gains, but she’s got my vote.
Pretty much exactly, yeah.
OP occasionally posts reasonable articles, but I admit I feel compelled to call out bullshit like this on their more agitprop-oriented posts.
OP tends to post naive agitprop takes on, like, literally anything Harris says or does, ignoring the realpolitik implications (which include, you know, losing to Trump because big corp and AIPAC go spooked by some campaign statement).
Just check the post history. They also tend to spam reposts in a bunch of communities, which I find odd, because karma farming is very much not a thing in the fediverse.
Edit: lol I see you, r2o
I read this stuff but I’m never inclined to vote for that idiot because of it, and if I share or talk about things like this, it’s due to cautious optimism and not trusting politicians. It’s good to keep things in check and not get swept up in the same old party Obama sold us. If this kind of thing is enough to swing someone to vote for POS Trump, they were probably going that way regardless.
It should also be noted that the wealthy benefit from fascism and right-wing bullshit, so of course Fortune would post an article like this.
Haven’t you read his own self report of his motivation? He cares so much about left wing causes that he’s decided to accomplish them by making a part time job out of attacking the most left wing person (whoever that might be) in this election for a variety of made up reasons.
It’s a hugely effective strategy. MLK did the exact same thing; he just made up hostile nonsense about the most civil-rights-friendly candidate at any given time, and presto! It pushed them to the left. That’s how we got the voting rights act and all this other good stuff.
I understand the logic, and it’s actually fairly shrewd. But in practice here, it’s looking to me a lot like just shitting on a candidate and sapping enthusiasm on topics that she does not currently have agency to act on. And then there’s the electoral pragmatism angle, in the context of an election where the other party has been subsumed by overt fascists and Nationalist Christians.
I don’t mean to demean or diminish the struggle of Palestinians, or any number of other extremely important causes. But failing to win this election is going to destroy so, so much. So my argument is that this is a “stop the fascists at all costs” situation, and confusing and snarling the issues like this is counterproductive. There’s a time and a place for that strategy, and I just don’t think this is the appropriate time.
Agreed
he just made up hostile nonsense about the most civil-rights-friendly candidate at any given time
Just checking in: is THIS article made up hostile nonsense? Or are you vaguely referring to some other thing
Correct.
If you want to evaluate the candidates on their energy policies (for some fuckin reason, as if it is necessary to have a comparison between these two on the merits), you can check into what each of them wants to do, and how much sense it makes.
If you want to pressure the Democrats to be more climate friendly in their policies, probably the best way is just to educate voters about what a vital issue it is (change the calculus of what positions will win or lose them elections), or maybe make the case to the Democrats that support for the fossil fuel industry isn’t as vital as it used to be (e.g. point to candidates in PA who were openly hostile to the industry who still got elected e.g. Fetterman)
Picking out one random wedge issue, and covering it in terms of whether Harris “flip flopped” between her support for the Green New Deal several years ago which included this one provision and now at this point not really saying much about it, as if that is gonna make anyone better informed about what is going on, makes no sense. It’s just creating a conflict between two random single statements at the very fringes of what a coherent energy / climate policy would even be. But it makes perfect sense if you’re casting about for some random cherry picked thing to say about her that sounds bad (and in a very particular way that will lose her support from both fossil fuel people and climate people, because each of them can focus on one time frame of her position which is alarming to them that they disagree with.)
OK, so your complaint isn’t about the factual nature of the reporting (Harris’s policy stance hasn’t been misrepresented as far as I can tell) your complaint is how it’s being contextualized and presented.
So it’s not “made up” hostile nonsense, it’s maybe just simply “hostile nonsense” from your perspective.
I mean, Obama really did wear a tan suit. He really did ask for Dijon mustard. Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say “ginned up” instead of “made up,” because generally speaking they are more or less factual yes.
Like I say, someone from the left who’s all upset about Obama’s drone strikes and saying hey WTF we need better than this, that 100% makes sense to me. But if someone is attacking Obama about the tan suit, and then when they’re called out they say well what about the drone strikes, I’m just trying to push him to the left, that seems dishonest to me. Doesn’t that accusation make sense?
How local do we have to get? Can the opinions of swing voters in like one county in PA hold the rest of the world hostage?
Polls indicate the majority of Pennsylvanians oppose fracking: https://penncapital-star.com/energy-environment/poll-majority-of-pa-residents-want-fracking-to-end/
“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pennsylvania had about 4,900 oil and gas extraction jobs in December of 2019. (For a frame of reference, there are more than 148,000 employed registered nurses in Pennsylvania. In January, there were 6.2 million jobs in Pennsylvania.)” https://www.pghcitypaper.com/news/pittsburgh-area-republican-candidate-sean-parnell-inflated-fracking-job-figures-by-a-lot-17001969
It’s a very dedicated interest group with a lot of money behind it, but fossil fuels simply don’t employ that many people, even in PA. It seems like an inadequate excuse for taking positions friendly to the fossil fuel corporations that are destroying our biosphere, both on the local scale and the global scale. Don’t blame Pennsylvania for Harris reversing her position on fracking.
We have a factory up the road that is the lifeblood of the town it is in (taxes and community support, but also just families supported). I could quote the number of people that work there (around 400 I think), but that town of 10k people would would vanish without it. The population would turn on someone promising to shut down the factory that only employs 400.
Multiply that scenario by…every rural town…and you get conciquencual numbers.
Also, while PA is undoubtedly a vital battleground, I want to mention that ElectoralVote currently has the tipping point state for both presidential campaigns as North Carolina: https://electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Tipping_point/Aug28.html
In other words, if Harris carries PA there’s a decent chance she will also take NC by a slightly larger margin, and will already have secured the presidency without PA’s electoral votes.
That’s because the President can’t ban it if they wanted to. From this very article:
While there are several ways Harris, if elected president, could halt fracking on federal lands using executive power, she wouldn’t be able to unilaterally ban it on private land. Under a 2005 law, the Environmental Protection Agency has almost no regulatory power over fracking. Changing that would require an act of Congress.
There’s little reason to change your stance then, other than to virtue-signal to the right
I prefer to think of it as vice-signalling
